The initiative to ban private sales of firearms in Nevada appears to have more than enough signatures.
The Bloomberg backed Nevadans for Background Checks has said that it has turned in 247,000 signatures for verification. 101,667 valid signatures are necessary to send the initiative to the legislature. If the legislature does not enact the initiative into law, then the initiative goes to the voters in 2016. From mohavedailynews.com:
Nevadans for Background Checks said it delivered nearly 247,000 signatures to Clark County election officials in North Las Vegas, hours after leaders of a group called the Coalition to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol announced they filed almost 200,000 signatures for their initiative.
With 247,000 signatures, and a Republican legislature, it appears that Nevadans will see the initiative on the ballot. A similar, but more complicated measure was passed in Washington state where opposition to the measure was outspent nearly 20 to 1.
The initiative in Nevada is 8 pages instead of 18 as in Washington state. It essentially bans the private sale of firearms, with minor exceptions. Virtually all sales and "transfers" will be required to go through a federal firearms dealer and have all information about the firearm and the buyer recorded on federal forms.
The initiative could easily have required background checks without recording the firearm and personal information. Background checks are already done for concealed carry permits without any transfer of a firearm, so the system is in place.
Requiring that the firearm information be recorded allows the system to be a precursor to a gun registration system. Such systems in California and New York are already being used to incrementally confiscate firearms.
©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch
Comparing it with I-594 passed in WA State, the Nevada initiative appears to be less insane than the WA one with regard to loans between close relatives, or immediate temporary transfers between non-relatives (e.g., two friends sharing guns while target-shooting together).
ReplyDeleteThis will likely make it harder to defeat than the WA one could have been with adequate funding to get the message out, since the provisions most offensive to common sense do not seem to be present here. (This statement assumes that my interpretation of section 6(c)(v) is correct in that it allows friends to share guns while target-shooting together.)
It is actually surprising why I-594 is as unreasonable as it is, since that would seem to make it easier to challenge it in court.
We had better start putting pressure on the NRA, GOA and other gun rights organizations to go pro-active on this “background check” business or we will be picked off state by state.
ReplyDeleteI practically lived on the various newspaper comments sections up in Washington, trying to get our point across: The people were being lied to and manipulated, i.e. There is no “loophole” (backed up with quotes from the 1968 GCA) and it is a registration scheme in disguise (typical liberal trick).
Unfortunately, non-gun owners didn’t give a damn. All they could see is how “reasonable” it was, ignoring the Form 4473 connection. That, or the “it would make us safer” meme. Bloomberg, et al will use the same successful arguments in Nevada, Oregon and other targeted states.
Our side is going to have to offer a background check initiative that checks the buyer ONLY, via a drivers license or some recognized photo ID. I don’t know if such a mechanism even exists, but if not we should set one up as soon as possible.
We have a more rational (hopefully) political climate in D.C. now, so maybe that part can be handled there. Sitting around and only making defensive arguments against this background check scam is not going to work. We need our own competing version to cut the ground out from under the antis.
Most of us are familiar with that animated GIF that shows the spread of Shall Issue CCW states. If those organizations don’t get off their duffs, we’ll see a similar one showing how quickly universal background checks spread. Start emailing/calling/badgering your outfit right now.
Offering a counter initiative did not work in Washington State. It may have mudied the waters and confused people.
ReplyDeleteThere was no serious attempt to inform the electorate in Washington State.
I belive they could have won if a serious effort had been put forth.
Spending only 6% of what the oppositon does, with no get out the vote effort, is not serious.